Sandi wrote:No inequality has nothing to do with it. The only equality to be concerned with is equality of opportunity in education and non-discrimination.

So inequality has nothing to do with it, except where inequality has a lot to do with it. Check.

Sandi wrote:The left likes to push financial equality...

No one said anything about financial equality except you. Ending poverty doesn't mean abolishing all wealth differences, it means making sure everybody has enough money to survive on. You do know there are many, many millions of people who don't have enough money to survive on, don't you? They're the ones dying of hunger even though there's plenty of food to feed them.

There are resources other than the aggregate amount of edible food that factor into the logistics of global food distribution. I agree that poverty (deficiency of resources/wealth) is a major factor, but what causes poverty?

There are resources other than the aggregate amount of edible food that factor into the logistics of global food distribution. I agree that poverty (deficiency of resources/wealth) is a major factor, but what causes poverty?

I tried looking up to see how many people die of hunger in the U.S. each year. The CDC doesn't track it. I'm still not sure where people think the U.S. can solve the world's poverty problem by loosening immigration standards.

To some of you, this may be an asshole comment, but I draw from a lesson I was taught if I ever tried to rescue a person from drowning. You are suppose to offer them something to hold onto (flotation device, pole, and so on) and never try to hold them. Reason being, you will be pulled down with them and you both die. I see the same thing when it comes to this debate. I have no problem trying to help/save needy people in impoverished countries, but I do have a problem opening all of our resources to them. In the process, we will spend it all and get pulled down with them.

Foreign governments lobbying hard in immigration reform. Looks like many countries are seeing dollar signs if immigration reform goes through. And why not? In the article, "Total remittances to El Salvador in 2010 were $3.6 billion in 2010.For Mexico, the figure was $22.7 billion, or 2.1 percent of GDP."

DCB wrote:Well, its now 4 days and 2 pages later - are we still talking about immigration?

Here's what I see to be the core issues for discussion. Feel free to add your own take on this list:1. Which/how many individuals should be given the opportunity for citizenship? What should the conditions for citizenship be?2. Should existing domestic policies be reevaluated in light of the large number of foreign-born individuals already in the country, "legally" or otherwise? What changes will be required once a proper course of action on Issue #1 is decided upon?3. One big wall or a series of smaller walls?4. In what ways can the issue of immigration be used for leverage in the partisan political arena, both in the area of courting new voters from immigrant populations and supporters thereof, and in using discussion of immigration policy as a rhetorical tool to shame and marginalize the opposing party.5. They took are jerbz.

ArturoBandini wrote:Here's what I see to be the core issues for discussion. Feel free to add your own take on this list:1. Which/how many individuals should be given the opportunity for citizenship? What should the conditions for citizenship be?2. Should existing domestic policies be reevaluated in light of the large number of foreign-born individuals already in the country, "legally" or otherwise? What changes will be required once a proper course of action on Issue #1 is decided upon?3. One big wall or a series of smaller walls?4. In what ways can the issue of immigration be used for leverage in the partisan political arena, both in the area of courting new voters from immigrant populations and supporters thereof, and in using discussion of immigration policy as a rhetorical tool to shame and marginalize the opposing party.5. They took are jerbz.